On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 14:47 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > Previously, the paths "meta/conf" and "meta-poky/conf" were hardcoded > as invalid paths for templates. However, this is suboptimal for other > distros that are setup similarly to Poky. Instead, add support for a > new variable INVALID_TEMPLATECONFS, which takes a list of invalid > paths. It is expected that this variable is set in the .templateconf > file together with the default value for TEMPLATECONF, typically at > the same time that TEMPLATECONF is updated to match the new > requirements. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]> > --- > scripts/oe-setup-builddir | 21 +++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/oe-setup-builddir b/scripts/oe-setup-builddir > index 225919be92..c1148daf4f 100755 > --- a/scripts/oe-setup-builddir > +++ b/scripts/oe-setup-builddir > @@ -34,14 +34,19 @@ chmod -st "$BUILDDIR/conf" 2>/dev/null || echo "WARNING: > unable to chmod $BUILDD > > cd "$BUILDDIR" || die "Failed to change directory to $BUILDDIR!" > > -if [ -z "$TEMPLATECONF" ] && [ -f "$BUILDDIR/conf/templateconf.cfg" ]; then > - TEMPLATECONF=$(cat "$BUILDDIR/conf/templateconf.cfg") > - # The following two are no longer valid; unsetting them will > automatically get them replaced > - # with correct ones. > - if [ "$TEMPLATECONF" = meta/conf ] || [ "$TEMPLATECONF" = meta-poky/conf > ]; then > - unset TEMPLATECONF > - rm "$BUILDDIR/conf/templateconf.cfg" > - fi > +TEMPLATECONF_CFG="$BUILDDIR/conf/templateconf.cfg" > +if [ -z "$TEMPLATECONF" ] && [ -f "$TEMPLATECONF_CFG" ]; then > + TEMPLATECONF=$(cat "$TEMPLATECONF_CFG") > + # Unset TEMPLATECONF if it is set to a known invalid value to have it > + # automatically replaced with a correct one. > + for dir in $INVALID_TEMPLATECONFS; do > + if [ "$TEMPLATECONF" = "$dir" ]; then > + echo "WARNING: Removing $TEMPLATECONF_CFG as it contained the > invalid value '$TEMPLATECONF'" > + unset TEMPLATECONF > + rm "$TEMPLATECONF_CFG" > + break; > + fi > + done > fi
I've been trying to keep out this discussion but I really don't like piling in more complexity and more things we have to support because of a legacy code path we're trying to obsolete. I also suspect this is going to be used to "subvert" the move to try and standardise and if that happens, we may as well not have bothered making changes at all :(. As such I'm worried about this direction. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#170979): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/170979 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/93847437/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
